Aspirin between her knees; use abstinence as birth control; Catholic Bishops weighing in on birth control; vaginal ultrasound required for abortion in Virginia???? Do they really want to ride this horse?

Can't understand how birth control became a medical condition requiring insurance to pay for the pills for a personal decision not to have children. I understand birth control pills can be obtained for free from some institutions. That doesn't appear to be the problem. The issue seems to get the people to use them and not use abortion as "birth control" after an oopsy. And health insurance covering abortion, except for a medical emergency, is not something I think we want to get into.

So, thinking only in terms of health insurance, who do you think actually pays for all of this in the long term--for abortion services, sterilization and birth control pills, especially when they're chosen personally as something elective and not medically prescribed? All of our rates go higher because ultimately we all pay for them. The government says the insurance companies pay. Oh, yeah, think again on that one. The rates go up in a group and we end up paying in the end. So, what's next? Surgically enhanced breasts will be covered because it's a medical procedure, although a selective decision?

By the way, I'm still a Democrat, but I can have these thoughts just the same. Maybe we need to get this on the table and truly discuss what everyone expects from health insurance. The issue seems to be I'm for that and you're against. But, as with anything, it touches other things too. It begins with the feelings, but then the tentacles reach out. Where does it end? Think of all the selective choices we can make and choose just because we want to. If everyone did that and insurance covered it, the rates would be out of bounds.

I know I've brought up some things that I may not even have answers for. I'll prepare you ahead of time for that. But I'm interested in others' thoughts even though I know my "feelings" may get in the way. But, then, in most issues they do go hand-in-hand. We can't ignore one for the other and vice versa.

As one who has been caught by the arcane interpretations health insurance providers put on words, I think some kind of change ought to occur. Even birth control can be, for some, a health issue, but the way in which health insurance providers often operate disallows it despite all. I guess I think that a person who buys should get what is paid for, and if birth control is a health issue for that person, the insurer should pay for it.

I guess I think that a person who buys should get what is paid for, and if birth control is a health issue for that person, the insurer should pay for it.

I don't disagree with that at all. If it's for medical reasons, it should be covered by prescription insurance. I don't know the statistics on this particular drug, but I wonder just how significant that number is in reality. It's probably quite small in comparison to the amount of people who use it for control with no medical issue involved. Of course, as we all know and have probably been involved ourselves, we get the doctor to write a prescription for one reason and have a backup issue to relate it to.

And I don't know the amount of money we're dealing with here either. Birth control pills may not even cost that much. I just don't know. All of these things may be approved eventually. But don't we owe ourselves to at least ask the questions? "Damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead" is not always the correct way to proceed. We shouldn't be afraid of change, but we don't go along either just because everyone else is and we're afraid to not be in step, especially if a sizeable number of people feel there are genuine concerns.

I guess I think that a person who buys should get what is paid for, and if birth control is a health issue for that person, the insurer should pay for it.

I don't disagree with that at all. If it's for medical reasons, it should be covered by prescription insurance. I don't know the statistics on this particular drug, but I wonder just how significant that number is in reality. It's probably quite small in comparison to the amount of people who use it for control with no medical issue involved. Of course, as we all know and have probably been involved ourselves, we get the doctor to write a prescription for one reason and have a backup issue to relate it to.

And I don't know the amount of money we're dealing with here either. Birth control pills may not even cost that much. I just don't know. All of these things may be approved eventually. But don't we owe ourselves to at least ask the questions? "Damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead" is not always the correct way to proceed. We shouldn't be afraid of change, but we don't go along either just because everyone else is and we're afraid to not be in step, especially if a sizeable number of people feel there are genuine concerns.

Health insurance companies pay for Viagra which is more costly than birth control pills. Also, women using birth control pills actually lowers insurance rates for every one in the group because it is much more expensive to have a child. It is a cost saving measure for insurance companies. What galls me is all of the men who are debating whether or not birth control should or should not be covered. And then the guy who quipped. "why don't they just put aspirin between their knees?" What a jerk! The issue here is not whether or not insurance companies will provide it but whether or not women who work for companies with religious objections can have access to it on their plans. The Supreme Court has already ruled that religion cannot trump civil rights. Women were acknowledged to have the right to birth control in Griswald vs. Connecticut.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that religion cannot trump civil rights. Women were acknowledged to have the right to birth control in Griswald vs. Connecticut.

And again, I agree. I'm not saying to deny women access to birth control; I was questioning who pays for it. In the case of Viagra, which you brought up in your post, I believe I've read some statistics on that one, too. It began as a medical aid, but quickly evolved into a recreational drug for all ages. I'm against health insurers paying for a drug for that reason, also.

Sorry, I'm getting off track on what your original post meant to convey.

What galls me is all of the men who are debating whether or not birth control should or should not be covered. And then the guy who quipped. "why don't they just put aspirin between their knees?" What a jerk!

There are a lot of issues in play here, but one is the male desire to control female sexuality. Birth control allows women a freedom that some men find threatening, especially religious men like Rick Santorum who seems to genuinely believe that birth control is bad for women. My question to Rick is: Who asked you--or any man, for that matter? What business is it of yours? Except of course that female sexuality is very much their business, because how else can they be sure the kid they're raising is their kid? How different the world would be if property and names passed through the female instead of the male and every single child was "legitimate"!

But that's just silly, right? We live in the "real" world, where men can have all the sex they want, littering the earth with their unwanted offspring and dodging even the most minimal support. The burden--and the blame--goes to those sluts who don't get a ring before removing the aspirin from between their knees.

I find Santorum earnest and misguided, but he doesn't represent all males. The condemnation of men in your post is, I think, a generalization without much validity.

You are right Dick, it does not represent all men (thank God), but a significant enough percentage that there is cause for concern. I for one say stay the hell away from my uterus! On a different note, the NY Times just published a review of the Kantor book about the Obamas and derisively called it "chick lit non-fiction." I think this is another indicator that books written by or geared toward women are seen as inherently inferior to those produced by men.

Santorum does not represents all males, just the ones who agree with him that birth control is bad for women (which is something Santorum has said). I never claimed otherwise. I also said that control of female sexuality was ONE of the issues at play in this debate. Dick, if you want to deny that the impulse of men to ensure that their heirs are their biological children has shaped our history, religion and society, I'd be more than happy to listen to you defend that position. But please don't mischaracterize my words and then dismiss them as invalid.

I don't disagree with that at all. If it's for medical reasons, it should be covered by prescription insurance. I.

Every insurance plan I have ever been on - through my parents - has covered birth control pills. I have been on them since I was twelve or thirteen because I have a hormone disorder.

What I think the issue boils down to at the moment is the legitimacy or the desireability of birth control or abortion, but the government mandating that private instituions provide access to and financial support for practices that are fundamentally counter to some of their core principles (e.g. . . the Catholic Church's take on the sanctity of life). I stand firmly against that kind of intrusion.

Also, even Civil Rights claims are limited for private institutions that are not subsidized by the government . . . Civil Rights Act only relates to federal governnment action. So, people working for private institutions should be aware of their core principles and the kinds of limitations they may create in terms of the kinds of insurance benefits available._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

The Supreme Court has already ruled that religion cannot trump civil rights. Women were acknowledged to have the right to birth control in Griswald vs. Connecticut.

This statement is not entirely accurate. Religious institutions are allowed to discriminate in several ways so long as they recieve no governement funding and do not violate some other law in the process because it is private action, not state action. There are some instances where the institution comes so close to acting in a manner that imputes state action that can bar discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

Also, Griswold really doesn't have much to with a woman's right to birth control and actually doesn't stand for that proposition. It invalidated a law barring contraception based on an emerging fundamental rights theory that read a fundamental right to privacy within the institution of marriage. It was noted that the only way to actually charge someone under the statute was to have a spouse give evidence, and the government cannot compel one spouse to testify against the other. This spousal privilege served to render the statute essentially useless. Thus, the case stands for the proposition that married couples are fundamentally entitled to privacy within the confines of that relationship and are consequently entitled make all decisions regarding whether to beget or bear children.

There is a subsequent case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, where women are acknowledged to have the right to decide to beget children, again based on fundamental rights and privacy theories. Justice Brennan: “it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child”

No case concerning contraception, or abortion for that matter, establish any complete rights to forms of birth control, nor do they mandate that the government provide them. Generally, these issues are left for states to decide how to deal with them.[/u]_________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

@LizE: Absolutely. But how does that have anything to do with birth control? That a wife is or isn't on birth control in no way guarantees that the children of the marriage will not be cuckoos in the nest.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that religion cannot trump civil rights. Women were acknowledged to have the right to birth control in Griswald vs. Connecticut.

This statement is not entirely accurate. Religious institutions are allowed to discriminate in several ways so long as they recieve no governement funding and do not violate some other law in the process because it is private action, not state action. There are some instances where the institution comes so close to acting in a manner that imputes state action that can bar discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

Also, Griswold really doesn't have much to with a woman's right to birth control and actually doesn't stand for that proposition. It invalidated a law barring contraception based on an emerging fundamental rights theory that read a fundamental right to privacy within the institution of marriage. It was noted that the only way to actually charge someone under the statute was to have a spouse give evidence, and the government cannot compel one spouse to testify against the other. This spousal privilege served to render the statute essentially useless. Thus, the case stands for the proposition that married couples are fundamentally entitled to privacy within the confines of that relationship and are consequently entitled make all decisions regarding whether to beget or bear children.

There is a subsequent case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, where women are acknowledged to have the right to decide to beget children, again based on fundamental rights and privacy theories. Justice Brennan: “it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child”

No case concerning contraception, or abortion for that matter, establish any complete rights to forms of birth control, nor do they mandate that the government provide them. Generally, these issues are left for states to decide how to deal with them.[/u]

Griswold established a 1st Amendment right to marital privacy. That puts it up there as a civil right. So, while it did not deal directly with this fact scenario, it did pave the way for the right to have access to birth control. There are a number of different issues here, but the Catholic Church (which an affiliate university is filing suit) receives quite a bit of federal funding. Catholic charities receive 67% of their funding from the federal government and hospitals and universities would not survive without federal/state funds in the forms of medicare, medicaid, public employee insurance, Pell grants and federal student loans. If private organizations accept government funding, they also accept government regulation. They are also subject to federal employment laws.